fun. There is also the personahzationn[of candidates]; this is the Americanizationnof European politics.nQ: Do you see the danger of this?nA: Of course, I think there is a greatndanger. The political parties are losingnall the ideas. They all went to a mainstreamnthey call mitte—“middle.” Fornexample, Social Democrats say they arenthe party of the middle. ChristiannDemocrats say they are the party of thenmiddle. National-liberals once said theynwere a party of the middle. Now theynare saying “we are middle right.” Andnso, a liberal mainstream that is not ideologicallynliberal takes all politicalnstreams and mutilates them. All becomenthe same. And this is the Americanizationnof the European politicalnstyle. This is one of the reasons why Insay, as an intellectual, I do not have tonbe a man “of the party.”nQ: In the beginning of our discussion,nyou identified the target as liberalism,nand you indicated the source was then”West”—America in particular. Howndo you see the relationship between thenformer East Bloc countries, in comparisonnwith developments of the NewnRight with the West? And when younthink about the overall concept of thenNew Right and the framework, do younsee it including all of the European Continent,nincluding the East, or do you seenit in a more limited way.-^nA: To the first question, I think thenNew Right has the possibility to go East,nbut just because of this collapse, the ideologicalncollapse in the East. The East isnopen, diffuse. They do not really knownwhich values they want or need. Ofncourse, democracy . . . the first step, innthe East, is that they are becoming consumers.nAnd then they will look for newnvalues. So I think that the New Rightnhas possibilities to win intellectuals innthese countries. Of course, they willnhave their own view of things, an Easternnview. But it is good that a Continentalnconcept be part of the NewnRight. The East belongs to Europe.nThe East is vital to Europe.nDuring the last 40 years, Europe—ornWestern Europe—was looking to thenWest as a virtual slave of the UnitednStates. This can now be correctednthrough the East. We have to focus ournEuropean tradition. When we say thatn”liberalism” is the main enemy, and atnthis moment, that means Americanismnis the main enemy. Its ideas are changingnEurope—are destroying Europe.nEurope is losing its own identity. Andnby losing its own identity, it is losingnstrength and will become merely a newnkind of United States. I am not speakingnof united Europe in a political, butnrather, in a cultural sense. In this planenwe have a structure that is different fromnthat of the United States in terms ofnethnicity and national identities and innits traditions. This must be saved, becausenthis is our strength. The greaternEuropean structure is composed of highlyndifferentiated internal forms that arencoherent in themselves. The East is annintegral part, so that the “re-Europeanization”nof these former Sovietnstates is a necessary and positive goal.nQ: You identify yourself with the intellectualnroots of German conservativenthought that is quite different from NationalnSocialism.. .nA: I think it is very important to havena clear understanding of German andnEuropean history on the main questionnof National Socialism. It containednmany different streams of thought.nThere were socialist streams, and manynpeople were executed for following thisncommitment. If the New Right had existednat the time of the Third Reich,nthese intellectuals would have been putnin concentration camps, just as werenGerman conservatives. There is a verynimportant difference between a conservativenrevolution and NationalnLIBERAL ARTSn• ‘ S^:in;;~*«-^-nWHITEWASHnSocialism.nQ: You frequently write for the magazinenAula, which identifies with thenyoung intellectuals who are concernednwith the preservation of national identity.nWhat do you see as the essence ofnthis issue?nA: We must rethink the concept ofnnation. The time of the nation-state isnpast, and the time of the regionally consolidatednnation has come. What donboundaries and citizenship matter innview of the new developments withinnEurope? This is an explosive question,nespecially when we see that tomorrownwe will be Europeans, belonging to anspecial nation in the cultural sense ofnthe word. It is our duty to supply newnideological weapons, to enter into debate,nto accept the challenge and makenourselves heard with a strong voice. Andnour voice is different. We take positions,nand we don’t mean in a vaguely liberalnOrtlosigkeit [placelessness], but along anliberal-nationalist line, in a tradition thatnis conservative as well as revolutionary,nthat works for national liberation as wellnas liberation of citizens to have freedomnof expression. We have the courage tonbe different. Long live the difference!nDonald Warren is a politicalnsociologist and author ofnThe Radical Center (J 976).nAccording to the Rocky Mountain ‘News last May, Aims Community College in Greeley,nColorado, has refused to award a scholarship established for a “full-time Caucasiannwoman student.” This decision came after a complaint from Jorge Amaya of thenLeague of United Latin American Citizens. Mike Geile, president of the college’snfoundation overseeing scholarships, said “the condition of the trust limiting thenscholarship to a Caucasian student was not appropriate to the goals and objectives ofnthe foundation.” The college’s president, George Conger, acknowledged that “the collegenhas supported other scholarships open only to certain minorities.” The donor ofnthe scholarship fund, Ruth Junius Youder, intends to withdraw her money if then”Caucasian woman” stipulation is not met.nnnOCTOBER 1992/45n